Brandon v. Williams, et al.

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/12/20 DENYING 85 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAIAN BRANDON,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-CV-2883-TLN-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. WILLIAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel

19

(ECF No. 85).

20

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

21

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.

22

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

23

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935

24

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success

26

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the

27

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is

28

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the
1

1

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment

2

of counsel because:

3
4
5
6
7

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to
articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not
of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it
extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.
Id. at 1017.
In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

8

circumstances. Plaintiff states that appointment of counsel is necessary to represent him at trial.

9

See ECF No. 85, pg. 1. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because the issues involved in this case

10

are not factually or legally complex, plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims

11

on his own, and, though plaintiff’s claims have survived summary judgment, the court cannot say

12

that plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood that he will ultimately prevail on the merits. Notably,

13

plaintiff’s current motion does not outline any exceptional circumstances justifying the

14

appointment of counsel.

15
16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 85) is denied.

17
18
19

Dated: February 12, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2